- From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:18:01 -0500
- To: "Jason Diamond" <jason@injektilo.org>
- Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
Sigh. This is why I shied away from putting a DTD in there for so
long. An argument could be made either way in this case, since there is
normative prose in the spec about this (suggesting #IMPLIED is correct),
but it describes what XLink applications *won't* do when href isn't there
(suggesting #REQUIRED is correct). I think I should probably keep it
#REQUIRED and add some explanation.
BTW, I expect that a proposal on XLink infoset contributions will be made
public soon, which should help a lot...
Eve
At 08:53 AM 1/18/01 -0800, Jason Diamond wrote:
> > >Why does the DTD make the xlink:href attribute on the simple element
> > >REQUIRED, when 5.2 specifically allows this? It makes the link
> > >untraversable, but so would an extended link with fewer than two
> > >resources, yet the DTD does not disallow this.
>
> > You're right. It should be #IMPLIED. I think I cut and pasted (blush).
>
>But the intro to the DTD says that "only constructs that have XLink-defined
>meaning are allowed." What's the XLink-defined meaning of a simple-type
>element with no href?
>
>Is the DTD trying to allow only "traversable" constructs? The comment below
>the location element seems to imply this--thus the reason for requiring href
>and label.
>
>Curiously, though, the label attribute is not required on resource. Are
>inline resources considered automatically traversable? Without a label, I
>don't see that it's possible to refer to a resource from an arc-type
>element.
>
>I understand that the DTD is non-normative but I'm trying to understand what
>an XLink-aware processor should be reporting to an application. An XLink
>infoset would be really nice.
>
>Jason Diamond
>http://injektilo.org/
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2001 13:16:12 UTC